Abstract:

The ever-present keyword ‘soft power’ has continued to trend in the recent decades and has been referenced a multitude of times amongst not only the political leaders of the world but also news outlets. Soft power projection is considered a key component in the twenty-first century multiplex and countries are continuing to find ways to produce soft power through whatever means possible. Conceived by Harvard professor Joseph Nye, soft power is, as conceived described as a co-optive and attractive force that operates through a country’s ability to attract and persuade others to do what it wants without force. Soft power manifests itself in many forms but is commonly seen through the foreign policy, public diplomacy and culture produced by a particular country. The purpose of my research is to assess why other countries are considered ‘better’ proponents of soft power protection. The two case studies will be the United Kingdom and China. Despite having different political systems they find commonalities in their imperialistic and dynastic histories, economic power and an abundance of culture. The assertion that this thesis will advance is that China is systematically disadvantaged in projecting soft power by means of public diplomacy and by extension generating soft power. Recipients or potential partners are biased against or unappreciative of China’s non-western themes of projection. To compare the relative success and failure of both countries this thesis will first seek to explain what the concepts of soft power and public diplomacy are. It will then explain in what areas the United Kingdom is ‘better’ than China and then seek to argue that in the current global climate China is not able to succeed by argument of a non-level playing field. The strengths and weaknesses of both nations will be examined through various lenses, both through their histories, public diplomacy efforts and their means of power projection. What this thesis will hope to conclude is that China continues to face an uphill battle, from within its domestic borders but also from the international community where its actions continue to be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

Description:

Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only.